How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

 

Things didn’t end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler; the last time the two met face-to-face, Wheeler had security guards escort Carlo off the premises. As president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), Wheeler was the wireless industry’s point man in Washington. Carlo was the scientist handpicked by Wheeler to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in its crib. This was back in 1993, when there were only six cell-phone subscriptions for every 100 adults in the United States. But industry executives were looking forward to a booming future.

Listen to Mark Hertsgaard on the Start Making Sense podcast.

Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.

A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program. Cell phones were already safe, Wheeler told reporters; the new research would simply “re-validate the findings of the existing studies.”

George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.

Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.

Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.

Whatever Carlo’s motives might have been, the documented fact is that he and Wheeler would eventually clash bitterly over the WTR’s findings, which Carlo presented to wireless-industry leaders on February 9, 1999. By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and reviewed many more. Those studies raised “serious questions” about cell-phone safety, Carlo told a closed-door meeting of the CTIA’s board of directors, whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry’s 32 leading companies, including Apple, AT&T, and Motorola.

Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”

Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers “the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume,” especially since some in the industry had “repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.”

The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.

Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”)

Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.

When Carlo arrived, he was met by two seriously muscled men in plain clothes; the larger of the two let drop that he had recently left the Secret Service. The security men steered Carlo into a holding room, where they insisted he remain until his presentation. When summoned, Carlo found roughly 70 of the industry’s top executives waiting for him in silence. Carlo had spoken a mere 10 minutes when Wheeler abruptly stood, extended a hand, and said, “Thank you, George.” The two muscle men then ushered the scientist to a curbside taxi and waited until it pulled away.

In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market, before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it clear, Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”

This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide. Rather, the focus here is on the global industry behind cell phones—and the industry’s long campaign to make people believe that cell phones are safe.

That campaign has plainly been a success: 95 out of every 100 adult Americans now own a cell phone; globally, three out of four adults have cell-phone access, with sales increasing every year. The wireless industry is now one of the fastest-growing on Earth and one of the biggest, boasting annual sales of $440 billion in 2016.

Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.

Carlo’s October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of the November 12, 1982, memo that M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. For the tobacco industry, Carlo’s letters are akin to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. “Doubt is our product,” the memo declared. “It is also the means of establishing a controversy…at the public level.”

Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.

This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits.

Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.

Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.

A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.

One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.

Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.

There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.

Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.

The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.

For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.

The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.

The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”

The revolving-door syndrome that characterizes so many industries and federal agencies reinforces the close relationship between the wireless industry and the FCC. Just as Tom Wheeler went from running the CTIA (1992– 2004) to chairing the FCC (2013–2017), Meredith Atwell Baker went from FCC commissioner (2009–2011) to the presidency of the CTIA (2014 through today). To ensure its access on Capitol Hill, the wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and spent $87 million on lobbying in 2017.

Neutralizing the safety issue has been an ongoing imperative because the research keeps coming, much of it from outside the United States. But the industry’s European and Asian branches have, like their US counterpart, zealously war-gamed the science, spun the news coverage, and thereby warped the public perception of their products’ safety.

The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”

Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.

To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma.

When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”

The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.

Niels Kuster, a Swiss engineer, initially filed a conflict-of-interest statement affirming only that his research group had taken money from “various governments, scientific institutions and corporations.” But after Kuster co-authored a summary of the WHO’s findings in The Lancet Oncology, the medical journal issued a correction expanding on Kuster’s conflict-of-interest statement, noting payments from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, GSMA, and Deutsche Telekom. Nevertheless, Kuster participated in the entire 10 days of deliberations.

The industry also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group. Hardell’s studies, which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users, were some of the strongest evidence that the group was considering.

Hardell had already attracted the industry’s displeasure back in 2002, when he began arguing that children shouldn’t use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly published a report with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell’s research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided “Litigation Support” and “Corporate Counseling” to various industries, according to its website. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell’s work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company.

The wireless industry didn’t get the outcome that it wanted at Lyon, but it did limit the damage. A number of the working group’s scientists had favored increasing the classification of cell phones to Category 2A, a “probable” carcinogen; but in the end, the group could only agree on an increase to 2B, a “possible” carcinogen.

That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.

Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”

Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts.

“Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up,” Leszczynski said in an interview in 2011. Sure enough, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, where Leszczynski had a long career, discontinued research on the biological effects of cell phones and discharged him a year later.

According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.

“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.

But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer,” demanded a Vox headline. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” urged The Washington PostNewsweek, for its part, stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored.

The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.

Microwave News’s Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?

The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects.

The wireless industry’s determination to bring about the Internet of Things, despite the massive increase in radiation exposure this would unleash, raises the stakes exponentially. Because 5G radiation can only travel short distances, antennas roughly the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. “Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone,” said Moskowitz, the UC Berkeley researcher. “So people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7.”

There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”

No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are likely to contract cancer, but that is precisely the point: We simply don’t know. Nevertheless, we are proceeding as if we do know the risk, and that the risk is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, more and more people around the world, including countless children and adolescents, are getting addicted to cell phones every day, and the shift to radiation-heavy 5G technology is regarded as a fait accompli. Which is just how Big Wireless likes it.

 

source: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

Posted in science and technology, Statism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification

BY KEVIN R. BROCK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 

 

Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn’t received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.

Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.

Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That’s FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.

To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):

First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.

On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.

In addition, several names are listed in a “cc” or copy line; all are redacted, save Strzok’s, who, for some reason, felt it necessary to copy himself on a document he sent from himself to himself.

Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as “case participants.”

Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.

In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals.

This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulosin a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.

The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.

Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia’s behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.

Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “individual(s)” associated with the Trump campaign are “witting of and/or coordinating activities” — also unspecified — “with the Government of Russia.” He doesn’t even mention Papadopoulos.

Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.

What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.

To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.

Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration’s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication. No pattern-recognition software needed here.

Hopefully, Exhibit A will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon. The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics. Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let’s pray we see some.

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions, which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

 

source: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/499586-new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without

Posted in crime, disinformation, Donald Trump, Scandals, surveillance, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Great UnReason of 2020: The ‘Curious, but Quite Authentic, Inability to Think’

Remembering Hannah Arendt.

Upon the Nazis’ rise to power, Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who would go on to become a considerable 20th century philosopher, had to flee with her family from her native Germany.

Once the war was over and some prominent Nazis were brought to justice, Arendt attended the trial in Jerusalem of Adolph Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust.

The experience left an indelible impression upon her, one that would shape the trajectory of her philosophical thinking.  What she observed was that, much to her surprise, Eichmann wasn’t the incarnation of evil that she expected to encounter.  His actions were monstrous, yes; but he was remarkably ordinary or “banal,” to use Arendt’s term of choice.

What struck Arendt was Eichmann’s “curious, but authentic, inability to think.”

However monstrous the deeds were, the doer was neither monstrous nor demonic, and the only specific characteristic one could detect in his past as well as in his behavior during the trial and the preceding police examination was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.” 

Eichmann didn’t subscribe to any “theory or doctrine,” exhibited no “particularity of wickedness, pathology, or ideological conviction;” his “only personal distinction was a perhaps extraordinary shallowness.”

Note, Arendt did not intend her characterization to be interpreted as commentary upon Eichmann’s IQ.  Nor, for that matter, did she mean to suggest that he was literally incapable of thinking critically.  Rather, her point was that Eichmann showed no will to think beyond the clichés—the memes, bumper sticker slogans, and hashtags—of his day.

Because of his reliance upon “clichés,” “stock phrases,” and “conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct”—all of which “have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality,” “against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and facts arouse by virtue of their existence”—numerous “inconsistencies and flagrant contradictions” littered Eichmann’s testimony in court.

Yet he showed no signs of being in the least “bothered” by them.

Upon her experience with Eichmann, Arendt began to revisit an ancient thesis, one taken for granted by earlier generations of philosophers, that between the will to think and moral character there is an inseparable connection.

“Is evil doing, not just the sins of omission but the sins of commission, possible in the absence of not merely ‘base motives’ (as the law calls it) but any motives at all, any particular prompting of interest or volition? Is wickedness, however we may define it, this being ‘determined to prove a villain,’ not a necessary condition for evil-doing?”

Continuing, Arendt writes:

“Could the activity of thinking as such, the habit of examining and reflecting upon whatever happens to come to pass, regardless of specific content and quite independent of results, could this activity be of such a nature that it ‘conditions’ men against evil-doing?”

It is crucial for the reader to recognize that the phenomenon that she witnessed in Eichmann she knew was one that is endemic to human beings generally.

In other words, Arendt knew that there was nothing unique at all about Eichmann.  Quite the contrary: He was ordinary, all too ordinary, to paraphrase Nietzsche.  But this was the problem.

As we reflect upon the readiness with which most of America (to say nothing of that many more millions in countries throughout the world, including the Western world) have acquiesced in what amounts to a sort of internment that has been imposed by their governments upon them in the name of keeping them safe from getting sick, it is imperative that we familiarize ourselves with Arendt’s insights, for there can be no question that “the curious, but quite authentic, inability to think” that first grasped her attention in Eichmann is as ubiquitous and glaring today, in our midst, as it has ever been.

It can, and already has, led to incalculable pain and suffering.  It is no stretch to call these evils.  Consider all that has occurred over the last six or seven weeks or so, since the dawn of The Great UnReason:

(1Thirty million Americans have been forced into the ranks of the unemployed by government fiat;

(2)Hundreds of thousands of small business owners, upon being forced by the same governmental decrees to close their doors, have been divested of their livelihoods, robbed of the blood, sweat, and tears that they spent years investing in pursuit of their versions of the American Dream;

(3)The Constitutional rights and liberties that define America as the unique nation that it is and for which generations of Americans have sacrificed their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” have been indefinitely revoked by politicians who pledged to protect them;

(4)All of those associations, the myriad of communities that, comprising as they do the whole of civil society, constitute our very identities as the unique human beings that we are; those relationships that transfigure us from the atomistic individuals of liberal political theory and the two-legged animals of Darwinian biology into persons and citizens—these have been substantially eroded by “social distancing;”

(5)People with serious, potentially terminal medical conditions in need of life-saving treatment have been either denied this treatment by hospitals that have cleared the way for COVID patients or they have been discouraged from seeking out that treatment by merchants of fear in positions of power;

(6)Domestic violence has increased substantially;

(7)Suicides are undoubtedly on the rise (though exact numbers are not yet forthcoming), but “news of suicide linked to the COVID-19 crisis have swept the globe” since late March “and sadly show no signs of abating.”

(These suicides, incidentally, are caused both by the panic stoked by a fear-mongering media as well as by the dread of the isolation produced by what Drs. Fauci and Birx and their supporters euphemistically call “mitigation.”)

(8) Depression, anxiety, dejection, despondency, loneliness—all have been observed to have “spiked” in the UK, and in the US;

(9)The wearing of facial coverings in public, by definition, are responsible for reinforcing alienation, distrust, and fear—characteristics that do not a civilization make.  While The Virus is most definitely nothing even remotely comparable to the Spanish Flu of 1918 in its lethality, the social repercussions that ensued in the wake of the quarantining that occurred a century ago are almost certainly occurring as a consequence of the “social distancing” orders that are being imposed today;

(10) Due to these “lock downs” of countries throughout the world, hundreds of millions could face “acute hunger” by the end of this year alone, and by virtue of this massive disruption in the “supply chain,” hundreds of millions more could face starvation in the Third World;

(11)Informers have made their appearance in America (and beyond) as the panic-stricken and the virtue-signaling alike have availed themselves of “snitch lines” to report violators of “social distancing” protocols.

And on and on.

Here’s the point: While those in Big Government and Big Media are of course responsible for all of these types of pain and the fundamental transformation of the country that, some are candid enough to admit, they hope it brings about, culpability lay not with them alone.

The masses of Americans who have bought hook, line, and sinker, without a moment’s hesitation, the Zombie tale of an Apocalyptic Virus are as well responsible for the immense suffering that their endorsement has left in its wake.

The Great UnReason is nothing less than that “curious, but quite authentic, inability to think” that Arendt first noticed in Eichmann now held under a magnifying glass and writ large in the average American’s response to the narrative of “The Coronavirus Pandemic.”

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel! Save Lives!

The inability to think on the part of the average American who spends every moment living in fear of contracting The Virus has rendered him oblivious to the contradictions of Experts like Dr. Fauci who, despite scaring the public with the claim that The Virus is ten times deadlier than the seasonal flu, quietly conceded in The New England Journal of Medicine, along with his co-author, Dr. Redfield, director of the CDC, that for all they know, it may have a mortality rate comparable to that of seasonal influenza: .1%

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel! Save Lives!

The inability to think of the average American has left him unaware of the world-distinguished epidemiologists, virologists, microbiologists, bacteriologists, and other medical experts whose views contravening the official account of COVID-19 have been suppressed by Big Government and Big Media (One list of these specialists and their remarks can be found here).

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel! Save Lives!

The inability to think of the average American has rendered him silent in the face of the harassingshamingphysical attackingarresting, and even killing of their fellow Americans who they, or the authorities, charge with being in violation of Social Distancing guidelines.

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel Save Lives!

The inability to think of the average American has made him compliant as his local grocery store is transformed into something eerily reminiscent of East Germany during the Soviet-era, a place where customers are corralled into lines and presided over by armed security officers.

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel! Save Lives!

The inability to think of the average American (including the average Christian American) keeps him from scarcely batting an eye as churches close and remain closed for Easter!

Flatten the Curve! Stay at Home! Avoid Non-Essential Travel! Save Lives!

Edmund Burke famously remarked that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. His point was similar to that of Arendt’s.

Shame on those otherwise decent human beings throughout America and in other formerly free societies that have since been converted into virtual internment camps.

Shame on them for their curious, but quite authentic, inability to think.

 

source:https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/great-unreason-2020-curious-quite-authentic-jack-kerwick/?fbclid=IwAR2oPc80_qieLYEJEeAwJzp7xXgSBVOM-oT_G2z3Snn82wnoQa9dEVSuCos

Posted in Constitution, Deep State, False Flag, First Amendment, leftist bullying, medical, social, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

70 scientists, doctors tell Trump how to regain control over corona crisis hijacked by radicals

The US scientists, medical professionals, and economists warned the president that the crisis was being used by some as a ‘political opportunity’

Thu May 21, 2020 – 3:04 pm EST

  •  

May 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Last week, a letter containing a dozen science-based, common-sense suggestions for handling the China Virus was personally handed to President Trump. It was signed by 70 US scientists, medical professionals, economists, and other technical experts representing all parts of the political spectrum.

They set their political differences aside because of their shared belief that, as they explained, “genuine science should be the basis of our technical public policies and subsequent actions.  Unfortunately, far too often real science has been replaced by political science.” 

In the case of the China virus, they noted, “some of the complaints relating to COVID-19 appear to be from those who see this pandemic as a political opportunity.”

Who among us has not noticed the ridiculous political posturing that some governors and mayors have been engaging in, which has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with political gamesmanship in advance of the upcoming elections? 

These outside experts, on the other hand, promised a “non-political perspective and recommendations on the way forward with COVID-19” based on their “diverse backgrounds and expertise representing a cross-section of specialties and skills in a number of fields, ranging from health care to the physical sciences to economics. … We are all in the same fight, so we need to work together.”SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

Here are their chief suggestions, followed by my comments:

  1. Immediately add a professional statistician to the COVID-19 team, continue flattening the curve, and require more accurate reporting of COVID-19 complications and deaths. 

The initial models being used to project China Virus deaths were poorly designed and produced wildly inflated predictions of infections and deaths.  Perverse financial incentives to report even suicides and traffic fatalities as China Virus deaths made the problem worse.  Having an expert statistician, combined with clear reporting guidelines, would help bring the numbers back to reality.  

  1. Federal government should put businesses into four categories (A thru D) based on the frequency and duration of close personal contact. 

Right now some governors seem to be making entirely arbitrary decisions based more on politics than science.  Those on the Left seldom darken the doors of churches and gun stores, so it closes them down.  On the other hand, because their followers tend to frequent cannabis shops and liquor stores, it allows these to stay open.  

Having federal standards would help to remove politics from these decisions, and inject much-needed rationality.  An “A” business might be golf courses, while “D” businesses might be restaurants.

  1. While private-public partnerships aggressively work to increase COVID-19 testing capability, educate citizens on how they can optimize their immune system.

Aside from living a healthy lifestyle, there is ample evidence that Vitamins C and D, in combination with Zinc, boosts your immune system and increases your body’s ability to fight off COVID-19 disease.  Rather than locking Americans down, health officials should be encouraging them to ramp up their innate immune system by taking supplements.

  1. The FDA should immediately approve doctor-supervised HCQ+Z-Pak+Zn plus Remdesivir protocols. 

Hydroxychloroquine should never have been politicized in the first place but, as soon as President Trump mentioned—accurately—that it was proving to be an effective tool in combating China Virus, his political enemies began to attack it.  

Even Dr. Fauci denounced evidence of its efficacy as anecdotal, despite the existence of nearly two dozen studies showing “the use of HCQ-AZ [Z-Pak] combination … appears to be a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19.”

The FDA should get out of the way, and allow physicians to prescribe the drug cocktail to any China Virus patient under their care.  Sensible doctors are doing this already.

  1. The FDA should recommend steam inhalation as an initial treatment.

Given that the China Virus is a respiratory ailment, and that viruses can be deactivated by heat (165 degrees), careful steam inhalation may prove to be a simple, low-side initial treatment.  The FDA should quickly investigate this and, if it works, endorse it.

  1. Congress should refrain from additional COVID-19 outlays, as an economically problematic amount has already been authorized. 

An obscene amount of money has already been thrown at the China Virus epidemic, much of which was wasted. We built hospitals that were never used, and sent hospital ships to New York and California that saw mere handfuls of patients.  Other sums went to Progressive “wish list” items that had nothing whatsoever to do with the epidemic.  

Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous 3 trillion dollar “fast track to socialism” bill is just more of the same. Any new expenditures should be specifically tied to dealing with the China Virus.  Our national debt is already close to unsustainable.  We should not be adding to it.

  1. Continue to exhaustively investigate the origin of COVID-19. 

Evidence is growing that the coronavirus not only leaked from the Wuhan biolab, but was created there.  An investigation is necessary not only to assign responsibility for the outbreak, but also to prevent a future outbreak from one of China’s labs.  Most importantly, it should include an assessment of the damage caused by the China Virus to the U.S. and the global economy, so that it can be used as a basis for seeking reparations from the CCP and its leaders for damages.  

If the CCP and its leaders are responsible, as the evidence indicates, then we should hold them responsible for their actions, and use all of the avenues at our disposal to recoverone way or another, damages.  

  1. Thoroughly analyze the objectivity, competence and timeliness of all major UN agencies

Obviously the UN agency most in need of a dedicated investigation concerning the China Virus outbreak is the WHO, but it is by no means the only one.  The CCP has corrupted a number of UN and international agencies whose competence and objectivity can no longer be relied upon.  They should be defunded until they are reformed.  Should reform prove impossible they should be replaced. 

Dr. John Droz, the physicist who put together the memo, summarized the joint effort by saying, “We support the President and wanted to give him several constructive suggestions going forward — and these are evidently somewhat different from what he is hearing from the Coronavirus Team.”

Steven W. Mosher @StevenWMosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia:  Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.  He is a signatory to the letter to President Trump.

Posted in medical, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Andrew Napolitano: The Country Has Gone From A Free State to A Police State In A Period Of Six Weeks

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date May 15, 2020


Andrew Napolitano: The Country Has Gone From A Free State to A Police State In A Period Of Six WeeksVolume 90%

FOX News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on Thursday warned America is turning into a police state and civil disobedience is on the horizon if governors do not come to their senses with civil liberties.

“Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin… said to the governor’s people, you do not have the authority for the lockdown, only the legislature does and the legislature told us they don’t want it and you can’t write your own laws and enforce laws that you have just written. That violates the Wisconsin constitution and by the way, the American constitution and therefore the lockdown is ended,” Napolitano said on FOX News’ ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’

“I don’t expect the same thing to happen in Michigan, but Tucker, the definition of a free state is one where the laws are written to uphold personal liberties,” Napolitano explained. “The definition of a police state is one where the laws are written legitimately or not to uphold what the government wants.”

“All of a sudden in a period of six weeks going from a free state — this is happening in all 50 states — to a police state,” Napolitano said. “The example you just cited in Michigan is violative not only of Michigan law and the Michigan constitution but the United States constitution as well. [Gov. Gretchen Whitmer] can’t take his livelihood away from him because he spoke out against her. That’s what the fascists did that we fought against in World War II.”

“Civil disobedience is probably the next step if these governors do not come to a sense of reason, Tucker, because the authority that they are enacting is absolutely illegitimate,” Napolitano warned.

Posted in Constitution, liberal intolerance/persecution, medical | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How the Left Lets Thousands Die, To Make a Point

by Merlin. 5/21/2020

For all their phony virtue-signalling, progressives have now fully exposed themselvesas killers without a conscience. 

Why Do Liberals Freak Out Over Hydroxychloroquine?

This pandemic has shown Americans a lot.

  • It’s taught us that the mainstream media is the perfect engine for spreading panic and hysteria in the general populace…
  • It’s demonstrated how anything, even a pandemic, can be politicized.
  • It’s shown us that there are still a lot of Americans who are willing to give up their freedoms for safety.

But there is another lesson we’ve learned, and it’s been one of the most frustrating: no matter what Trump does or says, the ENTIRE Left will try to discredit it, not because they have different information, but simply because he said it.

For some reason, when it comes to Trump, they’re not able to open their minds to the possibility that he’s right. Either their hate makes them have zero faith in his abilities, or they simply don’t want to acknowledge that he’s right and give him a win.

Because that’s the root of all of their hate. They simply don’t want to hand him a win—ever.

So, when he says something, instead of validating it for themselves, the just immediately discredit it. Their minds are too closed-off to give him the benefit of the doubt…and nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to COVID-19.

Politicizing A Possible Excellent Treatment

At the beginning of this crisis, the world was justifiably scared. No known medications were showing much promise in treating the virus. Certain compounds could treat the symptoms, but nothing was effectively curing the virus itself.

However, after only a few weeks, scientists found that anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine was able to block the virus from entering human cells in a petri dish.

So, in an effort to be as transparent as possible, President Trump gave a briefing in which he described the possibility of using the drug as a short-term treatment.

As soon as he said this, the Left began tearing his statement apart.

They ranted about how irresponsible it was to for him suggest this, claiming that there were no scientific studies showing the drug’s effectiveness. They said he was encouraging people to self-medicate and blamed him for the deaths of two people who ate a toxic compound containing a derivative of chloroquine. Some critics even suggested that Trump owned a stake in a company that produced the drug, and theorized that he was only out to make a profit.

   Trump’s Stake In Chloroquine: Yet ANOTHER Dem Hoax!Leftists are claiming that Trump owns a stake in Hydroxychloroquine manufacturing, and that he’s pushing the dru…

But in all of that, none of them talked about how chloroquine has been used as a preemptive treatment against malaria for DECADES! Even if it wasn’t effective against COVID-19, it’s been extensively tested and proven safe to use.

But ignoring that, the Left has started a campaign to totally discredit the drug simply because it was Trump who brought it up.

Fox’s Neil Cavuto has been one of Trump’s most ardent detractors during the chloroquine controversy. When the president announced that he is personally taking a combination of chloroquine and zinc as a preventative measure, Cavuto chimed in with his critical opinion once again. During a recent broadcast, Cavuto said to his audience, “I cannot stress enough: This will kill you.”

That’s a heavy statement…for a drug in very wide use for more than 60 years. 

And that may be why he seemed so stunned when, shortly after uttering this fearmongering nonsense, special guest Dr. Janette Nesheiwa told him otherwise.

Media Says One Thing, Science Says Another

“It’s something that you can consider — again, you’ve got to have to have the discussion with your doctor to decide if it is best for you,” Dr. Nesheiwa said. “It’s not going to be good for everyone. But it may be beneficial, and potentially life-saving for others. So, I think it’s good to have this medication in our toolbox, along with Remdesivir, while we wait for vaccines to become approved, and for other therapeutics to get on the market.”

The look on Cavuto’s face said it all…but the fact that he rushed to end the interview after she said this lets us know that it went against his own personal agenda.

Unfortunately for Cavuto and the rest of the Trump critics out there, the truth is the truth, no matter what! This drug has been able to help thousands of patients around the world fight off COVID-19. That’s just a fact.

And yes, like with ALL medications, there will be some who won’t be able to take it. Just like there are people allergic to penicillin or certain kinds of anesthesia, there will be people that can’t take hydroxychloroquine.

But that doesn’t mean it’s deadly, and it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

The Left wants you to believe the fearmongering because they just CAN’T let Trump win at anything, even if proving their point costs lives.

But just like how there are no atheists in foxholes, if any of these critics find themselves testing positive for the virus, you can bet dollars to donuts that they’ll be taking hydroxychloroquine if it’s offered.

Posted in disinformation, Donald Trump, medical, Scandals, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A look into the world of ‘politicized medicine’ in the age of COVID-19

 

by Sharyl Attkisson

The past two months have seen a battle fought out in the media over which drugs might work for coronavirus. Two divergent views have emerged of one candidate, a long-used malaria pill called hydroxychloroquine. President Trump touted it early on after small studies in China and France showed positive results, and frontline doctors reported they have had success when administering it to sick patients early after their symptoms manifest.

But many Trump critics became hydroxychloroquine critics, saying the drug is unproven and potentially dangerous. A paper published online in mid-April cast doubt on the drug’s safety by claiming that it didn’t help numerous veterans treated by the Veterans Administration and was linked to increased deaths.

Meantime, popular support in the media has built behind a new I.V. drug called remdesivir, administered as a fluid into the veins. It was developed to use against Ebola, but never approved for any use when other medicines proved to be more effective. A draft version of a study was accidentally published last month showing remdesivir did not help most coronavirus patients and caused such serious side effects, 18 test subjects were taken off the drug.

Still, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the White House coronavirus task force began promoting remdesivir as “quite important” after other data that proved no lifesaving benefits but indicated it helped coronavirus patients recover four days faster.

“The data shows that remdesivir has a clear cut significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recover,” said Dr. Fauci on April 29.

We set out to find the facts about the promise and harm of these potential coronavirus treatments, minus the spin.

Cardiologist Dr. William O’Neill is a medical director at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan where they’re studying both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine.

“I’ve never seen science [so] politicized in 40 years of practice,” Dr. O’Neill told me.

“President Trump touted [hydroxychloroquine] early and so then the media set out to disprove and discredit it without any regard for science. I think those of us that are actually involved in the scientific endeavor feel that there is some value to it and it has to be tested.”

Dr. O’Neill says he’s prescribed hydroxychloroquine to help numerous coronavirus patients and saw improvement in all of them. He’s less impressed, so far, by remdesivir, calling the data on that drug (so far) “a big Ho Hum.”

The biggest promise of hydroxychloroquine, he says, could be as a medicine to prevent Covid-19. He’s leading a study to find out if it works but says the bad press generated about the drug is making it difficult to get answers.

“Now people are scared to use the drug, without any scientifically valid concern. We’ve talked with our colleagues at the University of Minnesota who are doing a similar study, and at the University of Washington, we’ve treated 400 patients that haven’t seen a single adverse event. And what’s happening is because of this fake news and fake science, the true scientific efforts are being harmed because people now are so worried that they don’t want to enroll in the trials,” says Dr. O’Neill.

Meantime, a government advisory panel and the FDA seem to give remdesivir the edge. On May 1, the FDA allowed emergency use for severely ill coronavirus patients while stepping up cautions against hydroxychloroquine and its sister drug saying they should only be taken in the hospital or as part of a formal study due to reports of “serious heart rhythm problems.”

However, numerous scientists I spoke to say they think there could be financial incentives to promote the expensive, new, unapproved I.V. medicine remdesivir over the cheap, generic approved malaria pill hydroxychloroquine. These scientists question the report about veterans who were supposedly harmed by hydroxychloroquine saying it was not a peer-reviewed study, it was a collection of case reports with key details missing and no way to know what patients really died of or exactly how sick they were before getting hydroxychloroquine. They add hydroxychloroquine should be given early in the illness, not in the latter stages of coronavirus infection.

“I think we have to look at the money,” says Dr. Jane Orient of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. “There’s no big profits made in hydroxychloroquine. It’s very cheap, easy to manufacture, been around for 70 years. It’s generic. Remdesivir is a new drug that could be very expensive. And very lucrative if it’s ever approved. So I think we really do have to consider there’s some financial interest in remdesivir.”

I checked financial ties among experts on the government panel devising coronavirus treatment guidelines— guidelines that had the effect of dialing back hydroxychloroquine use and giving an edge to remdesivir.

Of eleven members reporting links to a drug company, nine named relationships to remdesivir’s maker Gilead. Seven more, including two of the committee’s leaders, have ties to Gilead beyond the 11 months they had to disclose. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board. Nobody reported ties to hydroxychloroquine, which is now made by numerous generic manufacturers and is so cheap, analysts say even a spike in sales would not be a financial driver for the companies.

It’s important to note that neither drug has been FDA approved to treat or prevent coronavirus. Numerous studies are underway regarding both drugs. Scientists I spoke to say that a lot more will be known about their safety and effectiveness, when it comes to Covid-19, at the end of summer.

We asked Dr. Fauci and Gilead (the maker of remdesivir) for interviews but they did not wish to speak to us for this story. We also contacted a dozen scientists who support remdesivir or criticize hydroxychloroquine, but they also declined to be interviewed.

Posted in corruption, medical, Scandals, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: